1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that "the planned development district for a new city for a new city for a new city for a new city for a new city for a new city for a new city for a new city for a new city for a new city for a new city for a new city for a new city for a new city for a new city for a new district for a new city for a new city for a new city for a new district for a new city for a new district for a new city for a new district for a new city for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district for a new district

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The Ordinance on the Relocation of Do Offices in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of this case")

(i) the Special Act on the Construction and Support of Urban Areas for the Relocation of Do Offices (hereinafter referred to as “Do Offices Relocation Act”).

The public works pursuant to the Ordinance are not identical to each other, since the enactment and implementation time of ordinances or laws, legislative purpose and purpose of legislation, autonomous affairs, whether autonomous affairs are established, details of plans and procedures, approval authority, financing, etc. are different. Thus, the designation and public announcement of the planned area to be relocated to the office of the Gyeonggi-do on June 9, 2008 (Public Notice No. 2008-398, hereinafter referred to as the “public announcement of the planned area of this case”).

(2) Although the Defendant cannot be deemed to fall under the planning or implementation of public works under the Act on the Relocation of Do Offices, it is unlawful that the Defendant Corporation conducted an appraisal and assessment on the basis of the date of the public announcement of the scheduled area of this case, not on May 4, 2010, which is the date of designation and public notification of the planned area of development of the new city for the relocation of Do Offices under the Act on the Relocation of Do Offices, and calculated the compensation amount. (2) The instant scheduled area of public announcement is the same as the designation and nature of the planned area of development of the new city for the relocation of Do Offices